Community Solutions Toolkit
Investing in Community Solutions
National data shows that 44 states have reduced the number of youth in residential placement and secure detention. Instead, jurisdictions are opting for community-based programs because they cost less, reduce reoffending, and improve youth and family well-being. At the same time, incidences of violent youth crime are plummeting dramatically statewide. (1)
Michigan is among the states experiencing a decline in out-of-home placement and has transitioned its juvenile justice system by shifting away from harsh, punitive treatment and focusing its resources towards effective, community-based programming. Many of Michigan’s county-based juvenile courts are achieving better outcomes by treating youth without removing them from their homes.
Using Reinvestment to Launch and Sustain Community-Based Programs
Counties that have successfully implemented community-based models have primarily done so by realigning existing resources. Dollars once used to fund an expensive out-of-home placement for one youth are now redirected to serve as many as twenty youth in a more affordable and highly effective community-based program. However, a lack of existing community-based programs can hinder a jurisdiction’s ability to take the first step.
Reinvestment (2) is a strategy aimed at increasing use of community-based options by offering financial incentives at the local level. With a small investment, counties can develop new community-based programs, thereby serving youth that would otherwise be placed out-of-home. The reduced reliance on out-of-home services results in immediate and long term cost-savings.
In Michigan, community-based programs cost an average of $10 to $65 per day per youth. (3) In comparison, out-of-home placements can cost from $200 to $500 per day per youth. (4) It is estimated that Michigan communities can save $1.7 million to $2.3 million per child by prioritizing community-based services. (5)
Initially, savings occur due to the lower costs of administering programs while a youth stays at home rather than in a residential facility. In the long run, money is saved because youth in these programs commit fewer crimes, have better educational and health outcomes, and are less likely to enter adult corrections.
The final key to a sound reinvestment model is ensuring that any money saved is invested back into prevention and early intervention programs for a self-sustaining effect. Jurisdictions must collect data before, during, and after implementation to document the effectiveness of the program and justify a reinvestment in services that have achieved desired outcomes.
1: Annie E. Casey Foundation (2013). KidsCount Data Snapshot: Reducing Youth Incarceration in the United States. Cf. U.S. Census Bureau’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement
2: Butts, J.A. and Evans, D.N. (2011). Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment: Three Strategies for Changing Juvenile Justice. New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.
3: This is a Michigan-specific rate of community-based programs. Gonzalez, Elvin, Family Division Administrator, Berrien County Trial Court. "The Berrien County Experience." 4th Annual Michigan Systems of Care Conference. 2011.
4: These are estimates of Michigan-specific rates of both public and private residential care. Carley, F. (2012). A comparison of Michigan’s residential placement options for juvenile delinquency cases. Lansing, MI: Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency.
5: Cohen, M. (1998). “The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14: 5-33.